It is shit, and it is considered holy by the Church of Scientology.
As I touched upon, Ethics is one of three main parts of the subject of Scientology. The other two are Tech (training and counseling) and Admin (organizational policy).
After the last post on this subject, I did a bit more research and came across something that perplexed me. I cannot believe I read this while in the church without a blink.
Ethics comprises the subject of Justice. While Hubbard confused the two subjects in more places than I can count, he somewhere intended ethics to be a person thing. He equated it with reason, with personal discipline and being true to oneself, while justice is the action taken by a group toward a person that goes against the mores of a group.
A person’s transgressions against the group is classified into three categories:
- Misdemeanors
- Crimes
- High crimes/Suppressive acts
There is an extensive list the three categories covered in the book, “Introduction to Scientology Ethics”. Wading through the list, we find a few interesting points:
Misdemeanors:
- Noncompliance
- Waste of funds
- Disrupting a meeting
- Impeding justice
So far, so good. These are the minor transgressions committed by the unruly. How about the real, juicy stuff, the crimes? Hold onto your hat, because here’s where it gets weird.
Crimes:
- Failure or refusal to acknowledge, relay or execute a direct legal order from an International Board member or an assistant board member
- Refusal to uphold discipline
- Not using a computer once it is installed
- Failing to keep a computer clean and in repair
- Misfiling in a computer
- Seducing a minor
- Issuing any Scientology data under another name
- Committing a problem
Holy shit! “Seducing a minor” is on the same level of severity as “Not using a computer once it is installed”!
Note that not toeing the party line is a crime.
And what the hell is “Committing a problem”?
Keep that perplexity – here comes the worst of the worst of crimes:
High crimes/Suppressive acts
- Unauthorized use of the materials of Dianetics and Scientology
- It is a high crime to publicly depart Scientology
- Seeking to resign or leave courses or sessions and refusing to return despite normal efforts
- Failure to handle or disavow and disconnect from a person demonstrably guilty of suppressive acts
- Using Scientology policy but calling it something else or attributing it to some other source
- Withhold of vital information
- First degree murder, arson, disintegration of persons or belongings
Excuse me? Withholding vital information from the Church is as bad as first degree murder? And worse than seducing a minor? Please pass me the barf bag.
And right here is the basis for the disconnection policy – failure to disconnect from someone who have publicly departed Scientology makes you just as guilty of a high crime. On par with arson or disintegration of a person.
And the use of Scientology policy while calling it something else is as bad as slaughtering a random person with a chain saw.
And people dare to call this a cult? Go figure.
Oh, and I can hear the justification crew come running down the door telling me this is taken out of context. That I am being too literal, that Hubbard didn’t really mean it that way, or, or, or. I am sure, with enough mental gymnastics, you can make any mental peg fit a square personality. I know, because I was just as guilty of leveling out my cognitive dissonance by the use of mental tricks. I cringe.
I should ease the harshness by mentioning that there are indeed good stuff that Hubbard wrote on the subject of ethics. But this, ladies and gentlemen, is just plain sick.
Geir Isene - uncut 
Dear Geir,
The body of Scientology has 4 (FOUR) main parts: Ethics, Tech Admin and missionary Tech which is very different to the others.
A missionary must know all the areas to his class and has therefore the highest træning possible.
Love Per, 1. Class Missionaire
The list is absurd. Wasting funds and impeding justice are worse than not keeping a computer clean and in repair (especially since it’s almost impossible to get funds allocated for such things and staff usually pay out of pocket as the orgs are broke).
Misfiling in a computer? Really? When I got into to Scientology, way after LRH wrote this policy laying out the various level of Ethics violations, the entire network of orgs across the planet weren’t even using computers to keep track of donations and debits and credits from accounts. It was a nightmare! It was gross disorganization.
It’s just more control and I speculate it was LRH just waking up one day and spewing stuff out while someone else dictated and threw it together policy to forever be considered gospel — forever uninspected.
I believe the “misfiling in a computer” has to do more with keeping a dossier for each member.
I read somewhere, I think Chuck Beatty mentioned it somewhere, that all members pc folders, ethics folders and general com are entered into the computer system Incom, so as for OSA to cross check everything for security reasons & red flags.
And I believe Chuck said Hubbard ordered this.
I am feeling too well right now to think about morals and cos and stuff, but I love dragon ball 😀
It is amazing how many times you can read this stuff while you are telling yourself you are a Scientologist and just never SEE any of it.
I used to put things in a “bin” in some corner of my mind labeled “Shit in Scientology that makes no sense”. I would tell myself that I would reserve judgement on it until I got farther up the Bridge, or finally completed my FPRD, or got more training, …etc.
It’s all a suspension of judgement, a forfeiting of critical thinking skills, a blindness to the outpoints which – if inspected too closely – might destroy your present life by realizing what you are actually supporting.
Now that I have been in that position, and done that to myself, I’ll never do it again.
Alanzo
agreed.
for me, I think it was because I was always a good boy and never really got in trouble so the SP policy didn’t matter to me. Although I blew staff a few times and always thought I was declared, I never was, and went back on staff to finish my contract. I was a good worker and worked to get my stats up, and just a good guy like everybody else. Stupid me,
but there was no internet and even if there was, I had hubbard’s thoughts in my mind of the great state of “clear” and “OT” in my mind as a goal to achieve. LOL
I had the same cognitive dissonance in my 27 years of being cultified. But on at least one level the classifications do somewhat make sense. The list of penalties started as one issue in the latter half of the 60s, IIRC it was about a page and a half on regular PL paper. Gradually over time more and more shit got added like for instance the classifications about computers.
What a crop of dung. A computer is a filing system, a very fast and uber-indexable filing system. It’s also a lump of electronics so the penalties for abusing it ought to be about the same as CF and any other physical asset. But I digress, let’s get back to the original issue.
It clearly states (in my various copies of the Ethics books) that crimes as “these offenses normally considered criminal” and lists a bunch of stuff that society as a whole considers criminal, like theft, fraud, seducing a minor and murder. Plus some Scientology-specific stuff.There’s no gradation or degree, presumably as those crimes are punished by society and not really so much by the orgs. So society, police and courts decide.
High crimes (suppressive acts) are those things designed to destroy or harm Scientology itself – which society will not punish. And because they concern the destruction of the immediate group, that group considers those acts very bad indeed.
See? Makes sense. What makes no sense is the accumulated crap that came later for the next 40 years. I agree with Sindy in that it looks like piles and piles of demented shit got piled on top based on … what? Who knows; phases of the moon maybe. I also agre with what I predict Alanzo will have to say, that “it all looks like just more Scientology” 🙂
We all know what Ethics became. I just can’t bring myself to take the really cynical view; I still think Ethics started out as a decent effort that went horribly wrong very quickly. The main reason it went horribly wrong is probably Hubbard’s usual blind spot – inability to admit when something is not working and go back to revise it.
Alan
Gerry Armstrong has a copy of the original HCOPL on SP Acts which came out in 1965.
It’s here:
http://www.suppressiveperson.org/sp/archives/820
A lot of people think that ethics got stricter under Miscavige. But actually, when the Ethics Tech was first released, it had a lot of things in it that were very strict and very bizarre. Two books, both written by Scientologists who were at Saint Hill in the 60’s when Hubbard released ethics tech have written about it.
One was the famous beat writer William Burroughs in his book Ali’s Smile /Naked Scientology:
And the practice of assigning
‘Conditions’ is still in effect. These conditions, ‘Non-existence’,
‘Liability’, ‘Treason’, ‘Doubt’, are assigned for misdemeanors
and crimes against Scientology. A student assigned to an advanced
condition must wear a dirty grey rag around his arm, may not
bathe, shave or change his clothes, must remain on the premises,
must perform manual work, deliver a ‘paralyzing blow to the enemy’,
admit his errors and petition every member of the center for
forgiveness. Does Mr. Hubbard seriously expect mature scientists,
artists, and professional men who have distinguished themselves
in their respective fields to submit to this prep school nonsense?
[http://www.xenu.net/archive/books/asns/NakedScientology.txt]
And the other is one of the best books ever written by an Ex-Scientologist: Robert Kaufman’s “Inside Scientology: How I Joined Dianetics/Scientology
and Became Superhuman”
[http://www.xenu.net/archive/books/isd/isd.htm]
Both of these books detail what Ethics was like at Saint Hill when it was first released and overseen by Hubbard directly.
Alanzo
Alanzo: “A lot of people think that ethics got stricter under Miscavige. But actually, when the Ethics Tech was first released, it had a lot of things in it that were very strict and very bizarre. Two books, both written by Scientologists who were at Saint Hill in the 60′s when Hubbard released ethics tech have written about it.”
Me: Added to the reading list. With luck I’ll get through them before this blog topic runs cold
so that PL came out in 1965 along with KSW. Hmmmmmm
But, didn’t you folks get the memo over at Tony O’s place?
http://tonyortega.org/2013/06/04/claire-headley-helps-us-get-back-in-the-good-graces-of-scientology/#more-7374
Specifically, if a person gets declared SP, then the person must do A-E if to get back into the church.
As Clare says:
“If you finally make it through these steps, a goldenrod issue will be put out publicly to all Scientologists stating that you have been restored to good standing after completing steps A to E above.
But here’s my point. I find this to be extremely contradictory. A suppressive person is supposedly someone who is fighting Martians over and over (or something). The handling for which, according to Hubbard, is very specifically a “Search and Discovery” where you uncover past suppressives you’ve been connected to.
And yet steps A to E above have nothing to do with that. They are strictly and only related to two things: a. paying a boatload of money to Scientology and b. returning to Scientology. Meanwhile, the only person in Scientology a declared SP can communicate with is the International Justice Chief. In fact, it’s a “High Crime” for a Scientologist to communicate with someone who has been declared a suppressive person.”
That’s why I have said PTS/SP tech over at ESMB is just a sales pitch hidden under the guise of technology, it’s BS.
On a side note, I posted some photo’s on ESMB in my post #119 on this tread:
http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?31930-My-Journey/page12
http://www.forum.exscn.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=5773&d=1370206506
If you read that image Hubbard says a “clear” should have been defined as “a person who has attained Tone 4 on the tone scale, not a person from whom the engrams had been removed”. That was 1951.
Something to consider.
splog: I still think Ethics started out as a decent effort that went horribly wrong very quickly. The main reason it went horribly wrong is probably Hubbard’s usual blind spot.
Dee: Reminds me of an earlier ethics writing, like the 10 commandments. Simple. I think Hubbard put too much mental mass or mind into it and it became what it is, complicated, unreasonable and incomprehensible.
deE,
You: Dee: Reminds me of an earlier ethics writing, like the 10 commandments. Simple. I think Hubbard put too much mental mass or mind into it and it became what it is, complicated, unreasonable and incomprehensible.
Me: 1. Are you saying the same thing about the 10 commandments, they they are complicated, unreasonable and incomprehensible?
2. Have you read the ten commandments?
Dio
Dio: “1. Are you saying the same thing about the 10 commandments, they they are complicated, unreasonable and incomprehensible?”
They are all three. The commandments look just fine on paper until you try to ACTUALLY APPLY them. Most folks have an intuitive sense of what they might mean (modified by their own viewpoint) but as always the devil is in the details. I will give three examples just to get the ball rolling:
a. The first 4 commandments. These read like the assertations of a petulant child demanding validation. Or worse, like Hubbard wanting to be upheld as Source. I don’t agree and quite frankly I shall make a carved image if I please. I also reserve the right to decide for myself if this deity even exists at all. The commandments de-facto remove this right and assume it is already true the the deity does indeed exist.
b. “Do not kill.” Hmmmm, there’s some language gymnastics happening here: that rule worded that way is not implementable for the simple reason that I had chicken for lunch. Someone had to kill the bird. My entire biblical education had that rule worded as “do not kill”, I notice that recent revisions of the bible changed it to “do not murder” which does make more sense. So which is it? Kill or murder? If a human changed it and the new version is correct, then God’s word for 2000 years was obviously wrong. If the new version is incorrect, then God make a rule that cannot be upheld.
c. “Honour your father and mother”. What does that mean exactly and how much honour is honour? Do I unquestioningly obey my parents in all things? Do I show them respect and by how much? Is the respect the style of respect demanded by The Godfather in the movies (i.e. fear-driven)? Is mother’s day cards and breakfast in bed enough? Somewhere in the middle? If so, exactly where in the middle.
So you see, the 10 commandments look simple enough but like Hubbard’s code is not really something one can apply in a meaningful way. If the commandents were items in a legal system, hordes of lawyers would have a field day finding loopholes. They already do it with carefully worded human laws, imagine what they would do to the 10 commandments.
If you want to reply, please give a reasoned response.
Alan
Splog,
1. All my responses are usually well reasoned. Even if it is a joke or sarcasm.
Tact is for people who do not have enough wit to be sarcastic.
2. Re: your response on the 10 commandments:
Several thoughts and perspectives come to mind:
a. At face value, on some points, some of your logic or rational appears to have merit. But with deeper evaluation they do not have merit.
b. After studying/ evaluating all kinds of people and families for a good 40 yrs, and studying/evaluating different many different modalities, religions and philosophies, I have come to the conclusion that the value of a datum is determined by how well they work and how many problems they solve.
And not by beliefs, opinions or arguments.
I would also add to ask; what is the “spirit” of the meaning of the data?
What is the broader context?
Evaluate it against all other subjects of comparable magnitude in the known universe.
Take them all for a good long road test.
Discuss them with other competent and intelligent people.
And I have concluded that families who live by the principles of the bible tend to be the most successful families.
And have the best and well adjusted and sane children, who tend to be the most successful in life. Success in relationships, work, business and socially.
Also note that there is a right way and a wrong way to do everything. Many people screw up the best of things and intentions.
The words of wisdom that apply here are: don’t through your pearls in front of swine, for they shall trample them under their feet into their manure.
I conclude the latter applies to you.
Dio
TL;DR
except this: “All my responses are usually well reasoned. Even if it is a joke or sarcasm.”
You could have fooled me.
Yes, Geir,
1. Evidently pretty well everything I have said has fooled you or went over your head.
Or the tone level of what I said has been more than half a tone level, over your tone level.
I wish I could do more to help you.
2. How is your US expedition going?
The last I read, you were supposed to be in NY on the 3rd and somewhere else on the 5th?
3. If you would come to visit me, I would give you that post graduate degree in scn.
And buy you coffee too.
Dio
You are mistaken on the dates.
I would take the coffee and a hug.
The rest I would leave for the birds.
Dio, do you ever smile?
You are doing it again.
A long list of conclusions and asserted truths with zero data to back it up, no reason given as to why you feel that way, just a statement on a blog that people who live by the bible are the happiest. All presented as if it were a complete truth and not as your opinion (which is what it really is).
Your debating techniques are strikingly similar to Hubbard at his finest – pound the data across with as much force as can be mustered and beat the other guy into verbal submission.
You sir, are but a troll.
Splog,
Nothing I said is not true, or not reasoned.
I am not a troll.
I am not a lurker.
Everything you said is nonsense.
There is no need for me to back anything up that I said.
Everything I said is just good common sense and good reasoning.
It is as simple as it can be.
But such stuff evidently goes over your head and many tone levels above you.
Dio
Ettin, is that you? Both of you?
Geir,
I have it figured out.
I am an earthling.
And you are either a Marcabian or a Plutonian.
If you spend enough time here on earth you will alculturate to earth ways of thinking.
LOL
Dio
Shit, you got me. And not only me. Everyone on this blog are Marcabians and we conspire to remove you from the face of this Earth. Beware the volcanos, here we come.
isene: Everyone on this blog are Marcabians and we conspire to remove you from the face of this Earth. Beware the volcanos, here we come.
Yes! LOL
Now I understand why all of you flunked scn.
Dio
MUHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
All your base are belong to us!
Dio: Now I understand why all of you flunked scn.
Dio, Flunk ! 🙂
Geir: Everyone on this blog are Marcabians
Me: Will that fix my unthinkably horrible hands?
What are you talking about? You have nice slender fingers. A model’s hands. Do much hand modeling?
splog: please give a reasoned response.
Dee: I have thought the same as you perfectly stated it, thanks. I think that everything can become complicated and one could use common sense as most do and no problem as they grow up with some simple guidelines. Enforced rules seem to me to be problematic. Thanks for spelling out your ideas. Hope this is reasoned enough 🙂
Dee: Hope this is reasoned enough 🙂
Me: Totally, and then some 🙂
Hugs!
Alan, the 10 commandments are a moral code and would compare with “The Way to Happiness” booklet, written by LRH in 1981 – his last writing on the subject. I think it’s a pretty good moral code, much better than the 10 commandments.
And you made a very good point about the fact that judgment is needed – even on the world’s most prevalent moral code, the 10 commandments. But somehow, LRH’s writings need to be taken literally by some people. Btw, Jesus too said HIS way was the only way – or you would be damned to hell for eternity. Interesting, eh?
Miraldi:
You: Btw, Jesus too said HIS way was the only way – or you would be damned to hell for eternity. Interesting, eh?
Me: What makes you think that Jesus was wrong when he said that?
Dio
Me: What makes you think that Jesus was wrong when he said that?Dio
Chris: What makes you think a man named Jesus walked the earth? The Bible that he wrote? LOL!
marildi: I think it’s a pretty good moral code, much better than the 10 commandments.
Dee: just different not better in IMO. Nice post!
Marildi: Jesus too said HIS way was the only way – or you would be damned to hell for eternity. Interesting, eh?
Chris: Oh, did he? Source? Oh that’s right, the Bible. Written by Jesus himself. Well, the early Christian Church was a really great and upbeat place to have fun until those dirty disciples got ahold of it, then it was perverted into what you see going on today.
Alan: If you want to reply, please give a reasoned response.
Chris: hahahaha!! No worries about that happening! I think I got it dialed in and can post Dio’s responses for him. No further need for him to stress. I can write back to you “Are you dumb or just plain stupid? You need a new thetan.” Saves him the trouble.
Alan: So you see, the 10 commandments look simple enough but like Hubbard’s code is not really something one can apply in a meaningful way.
Chris: Oh, . . . good post Alan. My father in law’s Jesuit professors at Fordham told him the 10 commandments could be reduced to the golden rule. Even that is inapplicable in any absolute fashion, isn’t it?
Ron took the golden rule one step further:
1. Be willing to exprience anything
2. Cause only those effects others are willing to experience.
For my money that’s a better rendition with more applicability than “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you”.
Richard Bach looks into that one in Illusions and come sup with the best version of all;
“We are all free to do exactly what we want to do”
Right! I forgot the “two rules for happy living.” Those are way more applicable.
Bach: “We are all free to do exactly what we want to do”
Chris: Not really, no.
Dio: Me: 1. Are you saying the same thing about the 10 commandments?
2. Have you read the ten commandments?
Dee: No and Yes.
He wrote what he had in his little universe of his mind, and in his mind he was king. He didn’t care about people murdering others, but he cared about his bone, Scientology was his. HIS! And HIS stuff are serious. In fact I don’t think he put ‘seducing a minor’ or ‘first degree murder’ because he cared about these crimes, I think he put them there to how serious in his mind the others were. And of course I agree with you, it shows how much out of touch with reality he was.
In my previous post it should read: ” I think he put them there to show how serious in his mind the others were.”
What hurt me the most was this:
Misdemeanors:
Noncompliance
I was in the group, in positive ARC with the texts, negative ARC with some senior staff members…and then I read I HAD TO obey them…WTF?
Unless I have some gross MU (and I would like somebody to explain to me what it is), I don’t see how that fits with making beings free –self/pan determined. It is in direct contrast to all SCN that I know. My bet is, this list fully or partially is simply not by LRH.
See the link I gave to the original 1965 HCOPL by LRH, which also includes “The Fair Game Law”.
Remember, this was first issued at Saint Hill while Hubbard was still living there.
Alanzo
Al if I be foolish enough to have somebody seriously harm beloved to me person, I will not send him my love & light, I will fair-game him. This is not optimum of course. The best would be to not get into such a situation at all. But I don’t disagree with -sometimes- being forceful to hostility. This has nothing to do with being obedient to random people just because they hold some higher post.
…the last being suppression, the way I see it. A group can act without orders, if it’s members know what to do and want to do it, they can simply co-operate. Obedience is enforced control.-
Control through KRC is hardly ever noticed, as it isn’t done through MEST nor through any other force or enforcement in general.
Al, you before were telling me the ethical value to obey the laws is nice. It’s nice when the banker takes your house because you cannot pay your interest rates, or if the swat invade your house with machine guns because you owe money to the IRS (?) or … …If you support such violence and enforcement in the name of $$$$, what’s the deal with fair game?
“From Independent Scientologist to just me” Page 52
“Protesting the Church of Scientology is a luxury phenomenon.
“When protesting the Church of Scientology has become more important to a large number of people than helping the world overcome poverty, helping the climate get back on it’s feet and solving the many miseries plaguing a large portion of the population on this planet, I believe we have gotten to a point of decadence.” (Geir Isene)
It seems you are trying to get across a point here. I just fail to see what it is. Can you please spell it out for me?
It seems like you’ve changed your viewpoint from the one you had earlier and I liked the earlier one better.
Is it so that you don’t have anything to say in defense of Hubbard here, so you vote for me to rather not talk about it?
You are free to talk about whatever, and I’m free not to talk about it – which is the direction I have been going in.
If I were to defend Hubbard on this particular OP, I would only be giving you the same arguments I’ve given you before, which is to consider the larger context so as to at least understand what he was trying to do, badly misguided though he may have been. And you in turn would give me your same old arguments back. As the kids say, borrrrrring. 😉
Misguided…. Seducing a minor will get you up to 4 years in jail in Norway. Not cleaning your computer will get you… a dirty computer.
This is not misguided. This is insane.
Here’s an alphabetical list of U.S. crimes. The spectrum is just as wide as Scientology’s crimes, if not more so – and so is the spectrum of punishment that is ultimately dealt out in both cases. But this kind of thinking is probably not literal enough for most of the people which the law of attraction pulls in to this type of blog post.
Criminal charges:
———————-
Aiding & Abetting / Accessory
Assault / Battery
Drug Possession
Burglary
Theft / Larceny
.
All Other Charges
———————–
Arson
Aggravated Assault / Battery
Bribery
Child Abandonment
Child Abuse
Child Pornography
Computer Crime
Conspiracy
Credit / Debit Card Fraud
Criminal Contempt of Court
Cyber Bullying
Disorderly Conduct
Disturbing the Peace
Domestic Violence
Drug Manufacturing and Cultivation
Drug Trafficking / Distribution
DUI / DWI
Embezzlement
Extortion
Forgery
Fraud
Harassment
Hate Crimes
Homicide
Indecent Exposure
Identity Theft
Insurance Fraud
Kidnapping
Manslaughter: Involuntary
Manslaughter: Voluntary
Medical Marijuana
MIP: A Minor in Possession
Money Laundering
Murder: First-degree
Murder: Second-degree
Open Container Law
Perjury
Probation Violation
Prostitution
Public Intoxication
Pyramid Schemes
Racketeering / RICO
Rape
Robbery
Securities Fraud
Sexual Assault
Shoplifting
Solicitation
Stalking
Statutory Rape
Tax Evasion / Fraud
Telemarketing Fraud
Vandalism
White Collar Crimes
Wire Fraud
http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-charges/view-all-criminal-charges.html
Eh? What is your point with this? What is your understanding of the OP?
I was replying to your last comment. Duh.
And completely non sequitur at that.
The Comm Ev recommendations for seducing a minor would would be much more severe than those for not cleaning a computer. Likewise, in the U.S. the penalty for seducing a minor would be much more severe than for breaking the open beverage law or disorderly conduct – all of which are on the list of crimes.
I failed to see anything as batshit as not cleaning your computer on that list. Did I miss something?
A ComEv for not cleaning a computer. As I said… insane.
When misfiling a a file on a computer is compared to misfiling your dick in a little girl, then my respect for the author got a serious salvo.
This is the second time you haven’t duplicated my posts. I gave you two examples of what would be a far lesser offence than seducing a minor. Jeez.
And, btw, I think you should also do a better job of judging how graphic the language needs to be to make a point, so as not to appear crude.
You have a poor point and you make it rather poorly. This may be your weakest defense of Hubbard yet. You also run the risk of identifying yourself with the insanity of the OP by defending in this vice (careful choice of wording to yet again make a point to a lady that may or may not be offended by coarse language)
Well, m’lord, I thought I made a very good point.
But that’s your story and you can stick it… I mean, that’s your story and you stick to it. 😀
Marildi wrote:
But this kind of thinking is probably not literal enough for most of the people which the law of attraction pulls in to this type of blog post.
Were you pulled in to this type of blog post?
Yes, I think you were.
Looks like I won’t be using any metaphors around Marildi.
Or analogies.
Or similes.
Alanzo
I said “most”. But if the shoe fits… 🙂
There are misdemeanor and felony versions of each of those crimes, depending on their severity – without regard to politics. This can not be said for Scientology justice procedures.
What’s way more important is that there are rules of evidence which have to be followed in US courtrooms, which are not followed in Scientology justice procedures. As well as the right to have an attorney represent you, which you can not have in Scientology Church justice actions. And of course, there is the recognition of rights guaranteed in the Bill of Rights, which are completely missing in all of Scientology “jurisprudence”.
That last fact is what makes the Scientology environment less civilized than the wog society around it.
Alanzo
What is supposed to be done as regards comm ev’s and what is actually done in the CoS are two different things.
No offence, Al, but this is the kind of thing I no longer wish to go on and on about. I can’t see the reason for obsessing over it endlessly. But you guys have yourselves a ball. 😉
The justice materials themselves, from Hubbard, are what I was talking about when I compared the rules of evidence, the inability to be represented by counsel, and the lack of recognition of rights to the US justice system.
Hubbard left all those things out of the Scientology justice system.
I wonder why?
Alanzo
Al, you may very well be right about certain points. I’m just not a person who wants to chew on them any more. My viewpoint is that those of us outside the CoS are no longer bound by any of it, so I’m trying to spend my time in better pursuits. Btw, I’m learning about Buddhism right now, as an adjunct to Scn. 🙂
Marildi, one of the best books I ever read on Buddhism is by Alexandra David-Neel. She mostly wrote in French, but this one is available in English.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexandra_David-N%C3%A9el
http://www.amazon.com/Buddhism-Its-Doctrines-Methods/dp/0370300475
Thanks once again, Val. I appreciate these tips. One question: “Buddhism” has different sects – which does she write about, or is it more than just one?
marildi, I believe it is mostly the Nagarjuna line.She writes about Tibetan Buddhism based on her experiences in Tibet.She was a very bright woman who already spoke Tibetan when she essentially snuck into the country when it was still closed to foreigners. This from the Amazon site, about her book “My Journey to Lhasa: The Classic Story of the Only Western Woman Who Succeeded in Entering the Forbidden City”:
“An exemplary travelogue of danger and achievement by the Frenchwoman Madame Alexandra David–Neel of her 1923 expedition to Tibet, the fifth in her series of Asian travels, and her personal recounting of her journey to Lhasa, Tibet’s forbidden city.
In order to penetrate Tibet and reach Lhasa, she used her fluency of Tibetan dialects and culture, disguised herself as a beggar with yak hair extensions and inked skin and tackled some of the roughest terrain and climate in the World. With the help of her young companion, Yongden, she willingly suffered the primitive travel conditions, frequent outbreaks of disease, the ever–present danger of border control and the military to reach her goal.
The determination and sheer physical fortitude it took for this woman, delicately reared in Paris and Brussels, is inspiration for men and women alike.
David–Neel is famous for being the first Western woman to have been received by any Dalai Lama and as a passionate scholar and explorer of Asia, hers is one of the most remarkable of all travellers tales.”
I actually ordered 3 other books, but I think I’ll order this one too. She mind was sharp and penetrating as a razor and she writes very succinctly.
More juicy data, Val. Thanks! 🙂
You’re certainly right about not being bound by any of it outside of the Church. It takes a while to break free of the mental chains that Scientology places on you, especially if you’ve ever been on staff.
One thing I learned early on was that Buddhism is NOT Scientology, and Scientology is NOT Buddhism.
So while you study Buddhism, if you find your self saying “Yeah! This concept is one I studied in Scientology. STOP RIGHT THERE and realize that you are dubbing your understanding of Scientology onto Buddhism. Go back and re-read the Buddhist teaching *by itself*. You will find very important differences between Buddhism and Scientology.
And you will find that the subjects are completely different.
Alanzo
Yes, I’ve already seen that. Didn’t take me long at all, though. It’s a completely different view of the “ground state of being”.
My Buddhist friend feels that Scientology was extremely helpful to him and he is all in favor of it being continued to be practiced as not everyone will be attracted to Buddhism. Obviously, though, as he’s a Buddhist, he feels that Buddhism is the only thing that takes you to enlightenment. It’s also the “only way”. 😉 Thanks for your input, Al.
One thing to keep in mind is that the early translations of Buddhists texts, which started occuring in the west around 1900 or so, were mostly written by English and German people who were not native speakers, nor were they Buddhists – for the most part.
Since the 1990’s however, an explosion of native speakers, and lifelong Buddhists, have published books which have eclipsed these early texts. The Dalai Lama is one great example of a publishing powerhouse which has churned out tons of books which have been translated by life-long english-speaking students of his – all with his quality checking the translations.
These usually have a better understanding and correct order of importance on the teachings than the earlier translations.
It is now very easy to find excellent translations of the writings of actual Buddhist lamas, rishis, and bikkhus. This was not the case in the early 80’s, when I first started studying Buddhism. And it was even more the case when Hubbard was first exposed to the materials.
With Buddhism, I find that the general rule is: the later the publication date, the better the data
Alanzo
Good tips, Al. Much appreciated. I think I told you, right now I’m sort of being tutored by a friend, but his recommendation for a good basic book to start out with is *What the Buddha Taught* by Dr. Walpola Rahula. He’s not native English-speaking but I think he taught in an American University at one point and his English writing seems pretty good. Anyway, I’m glad to have this data. Thanks!
Any datum is only as good as it has been evaluated.
The value of a datum is determined by the number of problems it solves.
The truth is not determined by authority.
Nor is it determined by who wins an argument, or by beliefs, or opinions.
The truth is the truth.
The truth is nothing more or less than the right answer to any problem.
The truth exists independent of anything, whether anyone agrees or disagrees.
Dio
^^^Redundant spiel.
Hi Isene.
Just discovered this blog (referred by a recent comment on Tony Ortega’s blog).
I just read some of your posts and I am quite delighted to find someone that has achieved the “me-ness” I am perceiving you have reached and the viewpoints emanating and evolving from “it”.
Regards,
Luis Agostini
.
Thanks. Welcome.
Holy shit is right because after reading I see many that they themselves do or have done. That’s why it is shit in it’s finest form! But of course they can’t see it, since they cannot look at themselves or it doesn’t apply to the leaders or the elite.
I wasn’t going to post anything about this, but I didn’t want to risk getting in trouble for failing to use my computer 🙂 When I look over that list, the main idea that manifests for me is happiness to be free of the strictures and mistreatments of that group. I wonder how the C of S would explain why “the most ethical group on the planet” needs to specifically include “seducing a minor” as something not to do.
I don’t understand what the deal with minors is in general. When I was 17 I would beg to be seduced by a 19 –providing she was really hawt! 😛 I watched in the news some years ago a teacher in the USA who got imprisoned because one of her poor, victim students (i think he was 16) had sex with her…she looked sooo….I wished I was him!
Nevertheless imagine what would happen law-wise if some group allowed that to happen inside it. “Ohhhhh child molesters!!!” etc 😛
Spyros: I don’t understand what the deal with minors is in general.
Chris: Not too many are offended by a 17 and 19 year old mixing it up. But when a 16 year old male worked at seducing my 7 year old daughter, I took offense. And in that situation, how do you suppose the Sea Org handled this?
Did they put your daughter write down O/Ws against pedophiles? 😛
No, but your question is a relevant one. At another point, when I was complaining about the harsh conditions at the CEO in downtown Hollywood, where my daughter’s alleged assault took place, I was challenged with, “Well, what are YOU doing to handle this situation?” I believe that moment was the end for me. With my daughter’s mother absent because of being “uplines” I had few good choices left. I made one of them, then another one of them, then some more and overall, I guess it has worked out alright. No regrets save for some of my initial ones that sent me down that road in the first place. My daughter, who operates at a high level as humans go, still has a ways to go to resolve her anger towards her mother and also in fact, myself, for the fucked up childhood that the two of us saddled her with.
Chris: “Well, what are YOU doing to handle this situation?”
Spyros: Sorry to read. Yes, that’s a popular service fac and means of suppression (an overt against which you cannot act). If you notice an out ethics and point it out, it’s because you’re either guilty or guilty of omission (you don’t work for the cause), according to the cool guys. If they notice an out ethics or ‘out ethics’ in you, God help you.
I’m glad it was the end for you, as if you agreed with it, you might become like that too!
Oh yes, I know I just said this because I’m guilty too 😛
Iguilty of shower with little girls? Or what? I don’t follow.
Chris: Iguilty of shower with little girls? Or what? I don’t follow.
Spyros: lol no. I was mocking a cool guy “If you notice an out ethics and point it out, it’s because you’re either guilty or guilty of omission (you don’t work for the cause), according to the cool guys.”
oh! haha I get it.
Chris wrote: Not too many are offended by a 17 and 19 year old mixing it up. But when a 16 year old male worked at seducing my 7 year old daughter, I took offense. And in that situation, how do you suppose the Sea Org handled this?
What??
If you would be willing, i would like to hear this story. You certainly don’t have to, and I would certainly understand if you did not want to0 tell this story, but it’s one of those things that are good for people who have been involved in Scientology to confront.
Alanzo
An immature, repressed 16 year old boy was put “in charge” of children. He “fell in love” with my daughter and professed the same to her. She told me the same day and of course did not know what to make of it. I went in person to confront the “commanding officer” of the CEO and got a typical concerned look and response which was to remove the boy from the area and cover tracks. I was not angry with him but very unhappy with a situation where a 16 year old boy was in charge of supervising a group of female children showering nude. Inappropriate doesn’t quite cover it. This memory has been repressed for me and my daughter remembers it quite well from a woman’s point of view now.
Amazing.
The Church of Scientology is not such a great place for children.
Hubbard himself commented in an early lecture that you could judge the moral/ethical level of a group or culture by the number of rules/prohibitions they had. His contextual example was the early Puritan settlers in America, and how they had a ton of rules/prohibitions about sexual behavior, which he thought indicated that group was very prone to sexual (mis) behavior.
But I think there are a couple of different ways to look at that fact of having many rules.
What I notice about the newest “Intro to Ethics” book is how thick it is, and how the list of crimes etc is expanded over the original slim little book published in the late 1960s,I believe.
My question is, who the hell do all these lists of crimes apply to? Certainly not me.
For me, the absurdity is that this is a suppressive act: Unauthorized use of the materials of Dianetics and Scientology.
How on earth are you supposed to NOT use ARC? Or the one-write accounting system LRH helped himself to, re-wrote and then claimed as Scn policy? Or how about the PR materials? Or the materials from the Vedas, the Tao, Buddhism, just to name a few? Just to name a few possible unauthorized uses…
In fact, the only people punished for unauthorized use are Scientologists. Anyone who has never studied the materials in an official org or Mission can use the materials to their heart’s content and call it whatever they want to. Who would know? After all the books have been sold to the general public for decades! And all of the books say the materials are for use! None of those books say that unauthorized use is prohibited or that licenses are required. I guess that may be why there was such a huge push on trademarks — but hey, that was closing the barn door after all the cows had escaped.
Maria, “materials”, can mean the books, tapes, etc. or it can mean the data contained in those physical materials. I think the unauthorized use of materials refers to the physical definition.
Can’t see that it makes any real difference in the intent. Non-Scientologists who buy the books are buying the “materials” — surely you don’t think that unauthorized use means using the books in a physical manner, like a door stop? Nope. This is about licensing and I-HELP and paying tithes, etc.
I always thought unauthorized use of materials had to do with copyrights, and that I-HELP had to do with licensing auditors.
No it really is unauthorized use. If you are a Scientologist and you own a company and you graph statistics and use conditions in your business, then you are required to have a WISE membership. The company I worked for had to stop posting graphs and using conditions because they did not want to pay WISE 10% of their gross income for the privilege of using the materials.
Wow, that definitely sounds like someone’s expedient interpretation.
The problem is, as usual that what is written is AMBIGUOUS. Lately, this is my biggest irritation with the materials. They are so often ambiguous and sweeping that it is almost impossible to establish what the intent is in many instances. This is a good example. I’ve come to think that the vagueness itself is a big part of the problem, deliberate or not.
In my experience, the biggest part of the problem has been (1) the intent of management with respect to interpretation of what is written and (2) their literal application and not knowing how to “play the piano” as regards the whole body of writings – rather than the problem being the original intent of LRH. That may not be the correct why for all ills, but it was and is for a lot of them. Just consider Debbie Cook’s email and all the references she listed as being violated – grossly violated.
Marildi: grossly violated.
Chris: Gross Auditing Error #1. What is it? “No auditing occurring.”-LRH
Maria wrote:
The problem is, as usual that what is written is AMBIGUOUS.
I think the problem is, when you compare all the contradictions in all the writings as the years went on (such as elements of The Creed of the Church becoming HIGH CRIMES later) what is written is DUPLICITOUS.
Alanzo
Alanzo: DUPLICITOUS
Chris: Ah!
Hey marildi, Amazon Alert!
I just bought 3 more books by Alexandra David-Neel! They were not available last time I checked a few months ago, now they are all there and at great prices!
Good data, Val! Thanks. I’m going to check it out.
This “crime” is my favorite:
Pretending difficulties with a computer that do not exist
Should be voted up as the Crime of the Century.
Crime of the Century:
Pretending difficulties with a computer that do not exist
Now that is usually handled with “check your settings”.
Alanzo
And to not do so should get you at least 1 year in jail.
Those grave, grave computer crimes, on par with the horrible crime of committing a problem are taken from the previous edition of the Ethics book – which in turn is taken from a policy. Do you (or anyone else that reads this) have the exact policy where it appears.
Marildi; You know how to find any reference by Hubbard better than anyone I know. Could you help me find this ref?
I studied it on the Ethics Specialist course:
HCOPL 7 March 1965 RA Offenses and Penalties
HCOPL 23 DEC 1965 RB Suppressive Acts, Suppression of Scientology and Scientologists
These are the two pls which list out all the misdemeanors crimes and high crimes.
Alanzo
Geir: “You know how to find any reference by Hubbard better than anyone I know. Could you help me find this ref?”
HCO PL 29 February 1984, Computer Series 6, “Computer Ethics Points”
Can be found in the 1991 edition of the green Management volumes, Vol 2 pg 464.
All 11 crimes were copy pasted exactly into later PLs that list all Offenses and Penalties – it looks like a large-scale effort was once undertaken to find every place where Hubbard defined action X as some class of offense, and amend Offenses and Penalties accordingly (apparently sans any form of reason, intelligence or judgement).
Computer series 6 is the original source.
Great catch, Splog!
For someone whose stand on Scientology obviously shows you know nothing about Scientology – you sure seem to know a lot about Scientology.
I hear the Computer Series by L Ron Hubbard contains the first issues to study on every Microsoft Certification course. No wonder Windows 8 is such a hit!
Alanzo
🙂
I only know about the PL because computers are my natural talent, so I read the PLs years ago when I first found them. What did I take away from them? They’re in the same category as washing windows and dusting cars…
Alan: They’re in the same category as washing windows and dusting cars…
Chris: LOL!
Series 5. 😉
Marildi: Series 5. 😉
me: It’s series 6 Mgmt Vol 2 in my copy. Mine is a 1991 edition, what year is yours? Looks like some things got shifted around between editions
Right. I have the 2001 edition (inherited from a disgruntled Scn friend). The computer series is now in Vol 1 of 3, and that particular issue is Series 5. (Just having fun with a bit of one-upmanship. ;))
“Right. I have the 2001 edition (inherited from a disgruntled Scn friend). The computer series is now in Vol 1 of 3, and that particular issue is Series 5. (Just having fun with a bit of one-upmanship. ;))”
I know 🙂
It’s in the Computer Series, Mgmt Series Vol 1, HCO PL 29 Feb. 84, COMPUTER ETHICS POINTS. The reference for computer crimes is actually given in the “Offences and Penalties” HCO PL itself.
Nobody needs this crap.
BAZINGA !!!
http://st-listas.20minutos.es/images/2012-08/340462/3671294_640px.jpg?1346285940
During the 80s, the computers started to be introduced in medium and small business.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_computing_1980%E2%80%9389
At that time I was making computer system for medium and small businesses. Since we used structured analysis and design, and structured (software) programming, from the system and software viewpoint, the analysis, design, implementation, and maintenance were not a problem. (We made everything “idiots proof”).
However our experience showed us that we faced two big and unexpected problems: people’s contra-intentions against using computers and hardware maintenance.
People’s contra-intentions against using computers were the biggest problem. There were even magazines articles about how to sabotage the development, introduction and use of computers in businesses. Some people just hated the computers, and they invented all kind of rationalizations against using them. (Right now, I know somebody – 91 years old, otherwise intelligent, man – who still, literally, hates the computers). No matter how many times we reviewed and explained what information was needed and how to use it, we were getting incomplete or false data, and the procedures were overtly twisted or not followed. (Only the minority of the problems were due to our software design and programming).
The second big problem was the hardware maintenance. The hardware was not as good as today’s hardware. Specifically, the electronics connections were not as good as today’s connections, and a little dirt made them to fail. Usually, when there was a hardware problem, the hardware maintenance people just cleaned the computers and the problem was solved. However, the hardware maintenance was not cheap, and there were not many people who knew how to do it properly.
The above belongs to the historical context of LRH when he wrote the computer policies. “Not using a computer once it is installed”, “failing to keep a computer clean and in repair”, “misfiling in a computer” were the kind of problems we were facing. I wish we could have assigned “crime” status to this kind of problems when we were implementing our computer systems.
“The above belongs to the historical context of LRH when he wrote the computer policies. “Not using a computer once it is installed”, “failing to keep a computer clean and in repair”, “misfiling in a computer” were the kind of problems we were facing. I wish we could have assigned “crime” status to this kind of problems when we were implementing our computer systems.”
Some days I feel the same about people carelessly feeding wrong data into IT systems. Try explain to a roomful of CTOs why the internet ceased to work for half a country because some careless fool typed a “1” instead of a “2” in a command he probably should not have been running…
To make matters worse, there is nothing I can do with the software to stop that happening. If I take steps to prevent people from being idiots, then I also stop them from being geniuses.
That’s just how it works in this field
We should go ahead and assign a “crime” status to any opposition to what we hold dear, be it things or thoughts, and make it punishable by law to oppose what we fancy.
Geir: “We should go ahead and assign a “crime” status to any opposition to what we hold dear, be it things or thoughts, and make it punishable by law to oppose what we fancy.”
Me: I can already do that 🙂
Around here I’m known as the BOFH (really, literally, honestly!). My other name is “Sysadmin from hell”, and I do make the rules.
If I had to make a moral code I would put as High Crimes to alter SCN texts and procedures, to technically degrade older against latter materials, to hide certain materials, to make certain materials, levels and courses super-expensive so people can’t afford them, to make new courses and checksheets, to intentionally assign false conditions, to burn a preclear, to cannibalise a preclear, to not feed SO members, to deprive of sleep SO members, to use SCN just for money, to not pay adequate money to SCN staff while the org makes money, to take money from a preclear and not deliver the promised service to EP, to refuse to correct out-tech as per SCN issues………………… just for starters 😛
“We of the church believe –
That all men have inalienable rights to think freely,
to talk freely,
to write freely their own opinions
and to counter or utter or write upon the opinions of others…
“High crimes/Suppressive acts
…
It is a high crime to publicly depart Scientology
…
Failure to handle or disavow and disconnect from a person demonstrably guilty of suppressive acts”
__________________________________________________________
“That all men were created with equal rights,
That all men have inalienable rights to their own lives. ”
High Crimes
Seeking to resign or leave courses or sessions and refusing to return despite normal efforts
Failure to handle or disavow and disconnect from a person demonstrably guilty of suppressive acts”
” Crimes
Failure or refusal to acknowledge, relay or execute a direct legal order from an International Board member or an assistant board member
Refusal to uphold discipline
…
Committing a problem”
______________________________________________________
AND WE OF THE CHURCH BELIEVE THAT THE LAWS OF GOD FORBID MAN
…
To destroy the sanity of another.
To destroy or enslave another’s soul”
“Misdemeanors:
Noncompliance”
“High crimes/Suppressive acts
It is a high crime to publicly depart Scientology
Seeking to resign or leave courses or sessions and refusing to return despite normal efforts
Failure to handle or disavow and disconnect from a person demonstrably guilty of suppressive acts”
_____________________________________________________________
splog: “Some days I feel the same about people carelessly feeding wrong data into IT systems.,,”
Well, there you go – a great example that shows how easy it is to harshly criticize LRH without having the full data or the context.
marildi: “Well, there you go – a great example that shows how easy it is to harshly criticize LRH without having the full data or the context.”
Me: I have no idea what you mean. I have the full data and the context – this stuff is my day job and I first did it in 1982.
I expressed annoyance about what some users do with computers. It freaks me out because I’m the guy that has to fix it. I’m not talking about small data errors like wrong phone numbers, I’m talking about taking out a large ISPs ability to manage itself, or make the internet disappear (complete with Google, YouTube, all blogs, people’s bank accountd and livelihood). What I do to solve it is get across to the user what the error is then train them to have better skills. All judged appropriately to the circumstance. If the user doesn’t like my method, they have a large array of recourse methods, including having me overruled by management, or out-voted by my peers
What Hubbard did is to classify it as a crime with severe consequence, to give the user zero recourse at all, to give the user no guidelines whatsoever as to how much uncleanliness or wrong data input was forgiveable and to wrap it all up with the full force of green on white with ethics backing, all whilst knowing full well that no-one in the organization would go up against him.
Maybe there’s somethign I missed, but I just don’t see how Hubbard’s and my methods are similar in any significant way.
For that matter, why is there no crime “Permitting addresso plates to be dirty”?
Alan, I didn’t mean YOU! I was referring to those who don’t understand how significant computer outnesses can be and just assume that it was ridiculous for LRH to give them such importance. It’s done with any number of things in not just ethics but tech and admin too.
YOU were the hero of the day, in my book, for pointing out the rightness of LRH to include those outnesses as crimes. And the ethics penalty applied is supposed to be commensurate with the repetition, and/or seriousness of the outcome of the violation. There was a time, at least, when the levels of ethics actions and penalties were applied with justice.
Marildi; Are you for real? Wait, you are. You can always count on Marildi to defend Hubbard for even the most insane of things. Marildi defending Hubbard’s computer crimes – now this is a new high. Putting “not cleaning a computer” in the same general category of severity as “theft”, “mayhem” and “seducing a minor”. Go Marildi!
PS: I think you missed a few bits (sic) of what Alan wrote.
Geir, by posting that list of U.S. crimes, which included very light to very heavy offences, I tried to get you to understand that listing things in the same category doesn’t mean they are equivalent. But for some reason (bias?) you refuse to duplicate the point. Go Geir! 🙂
Marildi taking the bait. Cool. Now try this on for show: The policy explicitly states that if a person repeats the Crime of not cleaning the computer or misfiling (as in names and addresses or some such), the Crime is upped to a High Crime – ABOVE that of seducing a minor, theft and mayhem – and in the same league as first degree murder. So, can you defend this offense being WORSE than seducing a minor?
Comment: You two, Isene and Marildi drive me nuts with laughter. Love you both.
Cool 🙂 Because as of now, I enjoy it.
Dee, just between us girls, I often laugh my head off too.
Neat video marildi. I can see how you enjoy being a “girl”. I too occasionally like to dramatize. 🙂 Life can be fun!
Sorry to disappoint you, Geir. I love debating with you (I have so many wins :)) but I can’t say that I know enough about this one to debate it. You may be right, I just don’t know.
But I do object to your simplistic description of it, which I’ve already tried (many times) to get you to understand (to no avail) as the basic principle of “circumstances alter cases” (which is inherent in policy) as well as the fact that you don’t take into account all related policies (as usual). Maybe if you had done so on this point and written a coherent and cohesive OP, you would have convinced me. But you didn’t. Nevertheless, I’ll give you a win by default. 😉
🙂
I was thinking of you when I wrote “Oh, and I can hear the justification crew come running down the door telling me this is taken out of context. That I am being too literal, that Hubbard didn’t really mean it that way, or, or, or. I am sure, with enough mental gymnastics, you can make any mental peg fit a square personality.”
You certainly didn’t disappoint. You have become very predictable. I don’t think it is possible for me to write a post that criticizes anything Hubbard wrote or the man himself without you jumping in defense. I think it is beyond human capability to do so. If I had only become Super-human from doing OT8…
LOL
But it’s true! 😀
On par with “seducing a minor”?
Why not just introduce “committing a problem” into the legal system? That ought to fix everything 😉
Well really, that is what criminals do — they commit problems i.e. they solve their problems by deliberately and intentionally doing things that make problems for others. Society’s criminal system evaluates and rates the motive and ferocity of what they did that caused a problem.
Framing it as “committing problems” is once again an ambiguous statement. Its true but it has so little nuance that it is virtually useless in real life application for it is completely open to any interpretation whatsoever and can be employed to commit problems.
Yes. I think David Miscavige’s whole career can be seen as one big committing of a problem.
…but I create problems all the time
Spyros: …but I create problems all the time
Magnitude comes to mind!
Spyros — its not enough to create problems. You have to commit problems! i.e. you can’t just set up circumstances so they will be difficult. You have to do or perform the actual problem. You have to pledge and dedicate problems as a kind of mission.
It is actually very difficult to commit a problem. Alanzo however has come up with a really good example of someone committing problems. DM seems to be very dedicated.
😀
(sorry… couldn’t help messing with it… Bwa ha ha ha ha!)
Then I must nickname you “Curious George.” (from a kid’s book) He has a knack for making problems too!
I was around in the 80s.
Hubbard didn’t write the computer policies. They were suggested as successful actions and encoded into mini-programs by spinning them as following basic Hubbard policies.
We had the first computer at PAC, long before the Internet. It took up an entire room of AOLA. Dave Cintron and another early computer geek whose name I can’t recall basically drew up those computer policies at management’s request.
I hope this clarifies. Hubbard was off making movies with Gold and then out camping in the Bluebird with Pat and Annie Broeker, according to all personal accounts we have.
Hub may have seen and approved or even tweaked the computer policies, but I doubt he did anything much more than glance at them. Hub liked “old tek”. For cryin’ out loud, he preferred telexes to faxes, handwritten invoice receipts with 6 copies, each with a corresponding hard file folder place, he used “old” sound techniques for “The Apollo Stars” and never was known to even type on a computer keyboard – he used typewriters and dictated briefs that others made into policies.
Hope I haven’t derailed the discussion – just want to assist to clarify this for anyone who found inconsistencies in the computer policy series. Hub didn’t write them.
I hope you’re not suggesting that Hubbard let people dictate what constituted High Crimes in Scientology without giving that a Go or No Go. That would be too weird.
Dave Cintron!
I worked with him in the 90’s in LA!
I know that guy!
Wow. I know a lot of people who wrote a lot of policies and tech which ended up with L RON HUBBARD’s name on them. All nice people. But they got no credit.
Let’s give a hand to RON!!!
Alanzo
Hip hip hooray!!! 😀
And nice job of still finding a way to make LRH wrong even when he didn’t write the policy. You never miss a beat, Al. 😛
Stand back. I am a professional.
Yes, professional at the kind of duplicity indicated and typical of critics. But at least you’re funny! 😀
Duplicity!
You used my word! You can’t use my word against me like that. I used it first against RON!
No fair!!
No, you used the mononym “duplicitous”. You don’t know the difference? Tsk tsk. 😀
“Mononym”
Nice!
See? That’s why you got the Alanzo Pass, Marildi. You are so fricking smart!
I owe it all to Scientology! 🙂
marildi, I just had the biggest laugh on that. You could say that again “I owe it all to Scientology! :)” You a funny girl 🙂
And you’re a sly one. 🙂
marildi: And you’re a sly one. 🙂
DeE: Right, and it does take one to know another. Glad to see we are back in comm, even if briefly on a comment basis. Now no sly remark back, ha, ha. I really do see your sense of humor.
marildi: And you’re a sly one. 🙂
Dee: I owe it all to Scientology! ….. I was a little slow on that, hehe 🙂
Marildi wrote:
I owe it all to Scientology!
I seriously, seriously doubt that.
But if you want to say that tonight, I will not argue it.
To Marildi’s Intelligence!
HIP! HIP!
Other than a couple held-down sevens, you ain’t so bad yourself. 😛
OH! I missed my cue…
HOORAY!
Hooray!
AHAHAHAHA!
Luv your work, Alanzo. ❤
Love you too, Sheila!!
Oh no, Geir! I’m not suggesting anything of the sort. Hubbard was personally dictating High Crimes since the early ship days and ever afterward. KSW is all his baby and everything that derived from that. Rocks and Shoals and other inhumane punishments – all of it.
I don’t defend Hubbard. You know me better than that. I’m just stating facts. Hubbard didn’t write most of the tek and policy issued from ’82 onward unless it had to do with Golden Era Studios, movie production, sound or the Running Program (his very last tek horror). Those were his personal interests. He didn’t even do a post hat turnover or write-up – he didn’t care about the organization or the rest. He didn’t personally use a computer, so pretty laughable that he would make it a crime for someone not to use one, though he certainly was known to have different rules for himself than others.
Geir, Hubbard wrote some mad, controlling, manipulative horrors and the ethics book is all his, just not the revised one adding the computer stuff. Yep, to L Ron, seducing a minor was a “MISDEMEANOR”, but stating you are leaving scn or discussing it with your kids or family was a high crime. Overboarding was policy. People nearly drowned, got hurt. Little kids were locked up under his personal direction. What Hub wrote isn’t any less horrible. He didn’t write the computer policies, though.
COS made a great deal of money on reissuing books and writing policies for Hubbard from notes or just spinning them from something else written. The name L Ron Hubbard was/is owned by RTC. Superpower? Never happened. Another COS money-making venture using the Hubbard name, based on a hodge-podge of ethics tek and confessional tek.
The cult just gets more and more cultier. Hubbard was a paranoid, controlling, vicious egomaniac and really laid the groundwork for this insanity. DM is a sadistic egomaniac who upped the punishments and controls a few notches higher and he is a product of the cult, born and raised into it.
Wow! That was very clearly stated! Thanks 🙂
😀 Thank you! And you’re very welcome, too.
The two blogs on evaluating the code of honor and ethics have been very illuminating.
They are cleverly and covertly constructed to hold his crime together.
At face value they appear intelligent and noble.
But upon careful inspection and evaluation, it is clearly evident that they sure have an ulterior, sinister, entrapment motive.
Thank you for bringing these subjects up.
Dio
So this ethics thing is no longer a Holy Cow (http://www.freezoneearth.org/HolyCows/cows/06justice.htm) but rather a Holy Shit!
And I agree.